diff --git a/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex b/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0b1473546ed35c9ab9ce63f6ccdef095c3c1b9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/GPL-LGPL/gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,2389 @@
+% gpl-lgplg.tex                                                  -*- LaTeX -*-
+%      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
+%
+% Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+% Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+% any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+\documentclass[12pt]{report}
+% FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
+% FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
+% FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
+\input{one-inch-margins}
+
+%\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
+%\setlength\parindent{0pt}
+
+\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
+
+%\pagestyle{empty}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\begin{titlepage}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+
+\vspace{.5in}
+
+{\Large
+{\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL  } \\
+
+\vspace{.7in}
+
+Sponsored by the Free Software Foundation \\
+
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+Columbia Law School, New York, NY, USA \\
+Tuesday 20 January 2003 
+
+
+
+{\large
+Bradley M. Kuhn
+
+Executive Director
+
+Free Software Foundation
+}
+
+
+{\large
+Daniel Ravicher
+
+Senior Counsel 
+
+Free Software Foundation
+}
+
+\end{center}
+
+\vfill
+
+{\parindent 0in
+Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\vspace{.3in}
+
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
+any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+}
+
+\end{titlepage}
+
+\pagestyle{plain}
+\pagenumbering{roman}
+
+\begin{abstract}
+
+
+This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most
+popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License
+(GNU GPL), and teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business
+people how to use the GPL (and GPL'ed software) successfully in a new Free
+Software business and in existing, successful enterprises.
+
+Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
+processes.  A vague understanding of how copyright law applies to software
+is also helpful.  The tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software
+developers and managers who run software businesses that modify and/or
+redistribute software under terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in
+the future), and those who wish to make use of existing GPL'ed software in
+their enterprise.
+
+Upon completion of the tutorial, successful attendees can expect to have
+learned the following:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+  \item the freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL.
+
+  \item the redistribution options under the GPL.
+
+  \item the obligations when modifying GPL'ed software.
+
+  \item how to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL.
+
+  \item the business advantages that the GPL provides.
+
+  \item the most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL.
+
+  \item how existing GPL'ed software can be used in existing enterprises.
+
+  \item the basics of the LGPL and how it differs from GPL.
+
+  \item how best to understand the complexities regarding derivative
+        works of software.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\end{abstract}
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+\pagebreak
+
+\pagenumbering{arabic}
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{What Is Free Software?}
+
+Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
+\defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
+world of Free Software.  The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
+it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
+forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
+(FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
+of software freedom.  A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its
+terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
+The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
+designed to defend and uphold these principles.
+
+\section{The Free Software Definition}
+\label{Free Software Definition}
+
+The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's website at
+\verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0.  This section
+presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
+pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
+
+A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
+that program, the following freedoms:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+
+\item the freedom to run the program for any purpose.
+
+\item the freedom to change and modify the program.
+
+\item the freedom to copy and share the program.
+
+\item the freedom to share improved versions of the program.
+
+\end{itemize}
+
+The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here.  It is not
+uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
+freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
+some of these freedoms.  Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
+detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
+GPL\@.
+
+Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
+Source''.  Besides having a different political focus than those who call
+it Free Software\footnote{The political differences between the Free
+Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented on FSF's
+website at
+{\tt http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}},
+those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side issue.
+User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite to make use
+of the freedom to modify.  However, the important issue is what freedoms
+are granted in the license of that source code.  Microsoft's ``Shared
+Source'' program, for example, gives various types of access to source
+code, but almost none of the freedoms described in this section.
+
+One key issue that is central to these freedoms is that there are no
+restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised.  Specifically, users
+and programmers can exercise these freedoms non-commercially or
+commercially.  Licenses that grant these freedoms for non-commercial
+activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
+non-Free.
+
+In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
+restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software''.  Typically, the
+term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
+``non-Free Software''.  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
+Software'' to refer to non-commercial software that restricts freedom
+(such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
+commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
+Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
+
+The remainder of this section considers each of the four freedoms in
+detail.
+
+\subsection{The Freedom to Run}
+
+For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must be
+completely unrestricted.  This means that any use for that software that
+the user can come up with must be permitted.  Perhaps, for example, the
+user has discovered an innovative new use for a particular program, one
+that the programmer never could have predicted.  Such a use must not be
+restricted.
+
+It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
+software; today it is not so rare.  Most End User Licensing Agreements
+(EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of use.
+For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software prohibit use
+of the software to create websites that generate negative publicity for
+Microsoft.  Free Software has no such restrictions; everyone is free to
+use Free Software for any purpose whatsoever.
+
+\subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}
+
+Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the
+software to suit their needs.  Access to the source code and related build
+scripts are an essential part of this freedom.  Without the source code
+and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the
+freedom cannot be properly exercised.
+
+Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.
+However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.
+Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both
+commercial and non-commercial settings.  For example, users often seek
+non-commercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.
+When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit
+programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
+
+The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users.  Each
+user, or group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a
+competitive free market to modify and change the software.  This means
+that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free
+Software.  Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies
+to commission software modification.
+
+\subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
+
+Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways.  Free Software
+advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
+age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
+giving away a copy of a program your friend who likes the software you are
+using).  Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
+altruistic sharing of software among friends.
+
+The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
+Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free
+Software.  Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone.  Those who
+redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively
+distribute (you can pick your customers) and to set prices at any level
+the redistributor sees fit.
+
+It is true that many people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
+sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
+tends to keep prices low and reasonable.  However, if someone is willing
+to pay a billion dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such
+a sale is completely permitted.
+
+Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
+distribution.  For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate
+security and upgrade distribution via a special network service.  Such
+distribution is completely permitted for Free Software.
+
+(Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about
+various Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom
+to share commercially.)
+
+\subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
+
+The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
+share those improvements.  The Free Software community is built on the
+pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software.  Inevitably, a
+Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared
+freely among members of the development community.  Such non-commercial
+sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.
+
+Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.  For a
+competitive free market for support to exist, all developers --- from
+single-person contractors to large software companies --- must have the
+freedom to market their services as improvers of Free Software.  All forms
+of such service marketing must be equally available to all.
+
+For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
+permitted.  Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
+to call'' when software fails or does not function properly.  For such a
+service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service must have the
+right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
+problems that are beyond mere user error.
+
+Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of
+Free Software.  Most Free Software programs have a ``standard version''
+that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
+However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' --- that
+is, make available non-trivial modified versions of the software on a
+permanent or semi-permanent basis.  Such freedom is central to vibrant
+developer and user interaction.
+
+Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
+of Free Software.  They may use freedom to share improvements to
+distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
+and features.  Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
+disenfranchised subset of the user community.  If the developers of the
+standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
+users, other entities have the right to create long- or short-lived fork
+that serves that sub-community.
+
+\section{How Does Software Become Free?}
+
+The last section set forth the freedoms and rights are respected by Free
+Software.  It presupposed, however, that such software exists.  This
+section discusses how Free Software comes into existence.  But first, it
+addresses how software can be non-free in the first place.
+
+Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright
+law\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification.  Patents
+  and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-free,
+  one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or
+  source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
+  without reliance on any legal system.  However, the primary control
+  mechanism for software is copyright.}.  Copyright law, with respect to
+software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
+software\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
+  performance'' of copyrighted works.  There is no generally agreed
+  definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
+  does not govern public performance.}.  By law, the copyright holder (aka
+the author) of the work controls how others may copy, modify and/or
+distribute the work.  For proprietary software, these controls are used to
+prohibit these activities.  In addition, proprietary software distributors
+further impede modification in a practical sense by distributing only
+binary code and keeping the source code of the software secret.
+
+Copyright law is a construction.  In the USA, the Constitution permits,
+but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal
+legislation.  Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is
+thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
+
+However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural.  Software, in
+its natural state without copyright, is Free Software.  In an imaginary
+world, which has no copyright, the rules would be different.  In this
+world, when you received a copy of a program's source code, there would be
+no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it with others,
+making modifications, or redistributing those modified
+versions\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern
+  patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}.
+
+Software in the real world is copyrighted by default, and that default
+legal system does exist.  However, it is possible to move software out of
+the domain of the copyright system.  A copyright holder is always
+permitted to \defn{disclaim} their copyright.  If copyright is disclaimed,
+the software is not governed by copyright law.  Software not governed by
+copyright is in the ``public domain''.
+
+\subsection{Public Domain Software}
+
+An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright
+interest on the work.  In the USA and other countries that have signed the
+Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by
+the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium''.  In
+the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the
+software into a file.
+
+However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the
+copyright laws.  Once this is done, the software is in the public domain
+--- it is no longer covered by copyright.  Since it is copyright law that
+allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,
+modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the
+copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free
+Software.
+
+Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
+in any way.  It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
+public domain'', or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
+expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
+
+By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
+controls on the work.  The law gave her controls over the work, and she
+has chosen to waive those controls.  Software in the public domain is
+absent copyright and absent a license.  The software freedoms discussed in
+Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
+legal system in play to take them away.
+
+\subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
+
+If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
+stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
+easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software.  Indeed,
+some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
+software Free.  However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
+copyrighted.  In most cases (particularly in that of FSF and the GNU
+Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
+
+Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
+who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
+copyright.  However, since the work is not copyrighted, any non-trivial
+modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
+
+Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
+perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
+public domain as well.  However, over time, some entities will choose to
+proprietarize their modified versions.  The public domain body of software
+feeds the proprietary software.  The public commons disappears, because
+fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
+commons.  They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
+enhancements.  Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public
+domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
+
+A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem.  FSF was in fact
+originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
+and that work of of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
+its work today.  Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
+extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
+and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms, and many, including the
+developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
+
+Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
+freedom.  The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
+software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
+use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
+the software have equal rights and freedom.  In essence, copyleft grants
+freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom from anyone else along
+the distribution and modification chains.
+
+Copyleft is a general concept.  Much like ideas for what a computer might
+do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
+too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
+``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is often enough to explain the
+concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
+true implementation in legal text must exist.  The GPL is the primary
+implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
+
+\section{An Ecosystem of Equality}
+
+The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'
+rights.  This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both
+business and non-commercial users.
+
+\subsection{The Non-Commercial Ecosystem}
+
+A GPL'ed code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
+community.  Traditionally, volunteers, operating non-commercially out of
+keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
+of a GPL'ed system.  Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
+Internet, any useful GPL'ed system is adopted quickly by non-commercial
+users.
+
+Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
+gives birth to a thriving non-commercial community.  Users and developers
+begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
+commons.  Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
+developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
+ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
+Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
+passing along the rights granted by GPL, so they are assured that every
+one of their users is treated equally.
+
+Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'ed distribution,
+nearly every GPL'ed package in existence has a vibrant non-commercial user
+and developer base.
+
+\subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
+
+By the same token, nearly all established GPL'ed software systems have a
+vibrant commercial community.  Nearly every GPL'ed system that has gained
+wide adoption from non-commercial users and developers eventually begins
+to fuel a commercial system around that software.
+
+For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
+systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
+Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
+it was deployed non-commercially in academic environments.  However, very
+soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
+as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
+Microsoft Windows NT file-servers.  This served to lower the cost of
+running such servers by orders of magnitude.  There was suddenly room in
+Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba.  Some of
+the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
+students who originally developed the software.
+
+The non-commercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
+fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'ed work.  They knew
+that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
+distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
+the standard version.  Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
+Samba, so the non-commercial users, and even other commercial users are
+safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
+protected.
+
+Commercial developers also work in concert with non-commercial developers.
+Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to contribute to
+Samba altruistically, but also get work doing it.  Priorities change when a
+client is in the mix, but all the code is contributed back to the
+standard version.  Meanwhile, many other individuals have gotten involved
+non-commercially as developers, because they want to ``cut their teeth on
+Free Software'' or because the problems interest them.  When they get good
+at it, perhaps they will move on to another project or perhaps they will
+become commercial developers of the software themselves.
+
+No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
+everyone is on equal ground.  The GPL protects rights of the commercial
+and non-commercial contributors and users equally.  The GPL creates trust,
+because it is a level playing field for all.
+
+\subsection{Law Analogy}
+
+In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
+Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
+Software.  He argues that the laws of a Free society must be protected
+much like the GPL protects software.  So that I might do true justice to
+Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
+
+\begin{quotation}
+
+A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
+society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
+laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
+regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
+controls.  But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
+only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
+or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
+
+This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature.  Think
+about the practice of law in American courts.  Lawyers are hired by their
+clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
+advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
+write briefs.  These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
+These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
+can stand consistently with a constitution.
+
+All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
+Legal briefs are open and free for others to use.  The arguments are
+transparent (which is different from saying they are good) and the
+reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
+The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs.  They can be
+copied and integrated into another brief or opinion.  The ``source code''
+for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
+to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
+it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before.  The
+source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
+
+This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
+lawyers.  Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
+though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else.  The
+lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public.  Yet the crafting is
+not charity.  Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
+without price.  Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
+the earlier.
+
+We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
+arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
+the reasoning.  Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
+else.  Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
+
+We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
+``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
+or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
+The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
+efficient application.  Instead, openness and transparency are the
+constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
+added if convenient to the leaders.  Life governed by software code should
+be no less.
+
+Code writing is not litigation.  It is better, richer, more
+productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
+incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products created.
+Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built upon the work
+that went before. This adding and changing is what creativity always is.
+And a free society is one that assures that its most important resources
+remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This quotation is Copyright
+  \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig.  It is licensed under the terms of
+  \href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
+    License'', version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
+  Commons.}
+\end{quotation}
+
+In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
+infrastructure.  Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
+own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
+everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
+
+The Free Software economy is a market that is ripe for experts.  It
+functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
+law.  The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
+creation of this vibrant commercial and non-commercial Free Software
+economy.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Copying, Modifying and Redistributing}
+
+This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
+GPL\@.  In this chapter, we consider the core terms: GPL \S\S 0--3.  These
+are the sections of the GPL that fundamentally define the legal details of
+how software freedom is respected.
+
+\section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
+\label{GPLs0}
+
+\S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
+copyright law.  It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
+holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms, and explains
+how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.
+
+A bit more subtly, \S 0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
+system under which it is governed.  Specifically, it states:
+\begin{quote}
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
+\end{quote}
+In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities and all other
+activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL
+(which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}).  This is
+very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
+users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
+material.  GPL asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights
+to fair and unregulated uses.
+
+Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that
+permits certain activities.  Discussion of the various types of fair use
+activity are beyond the scope of this tutorial.  However, one important
+example of fair use is the right to quote a very few lines (less than
+seven or so), and reuse them as you with without licensing restrictions.
+
+Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute.  By
+contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
+nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
+many users.  An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
+program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
+how to be a better programmer.
+
+\medskip
+
+Thus, the GPL protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
+not attempting to cover them.  Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom
+to run specifically by stating the following:
+\begin{quote}
+The act of running the Program is not restricted
+\end{quote}
+Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
+
+\medskip
+
+The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
+throughout.  The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
+the Program''.  The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
+not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but the
+because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
+
+The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
+definition of ``derivative work''.  In fact, it would be incorrect and
+problematic if the GPL attempted to define this.  A copyright license, in
+fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work.  This
+matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
+
+It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear
+and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative
+software work under copyright law.  However, no copyright license --- not
+even the GNU GPL -- can be blamed for this.  Legislators and court
+opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
+
+\section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
+\label{GPLs1}
+
+GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
+exactly as it was received.  This section is quite straightforward.
+However, there are a few details worth noting here.
+
+The phrase ``in any medium'' is important.  This, for example, gives the
+freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source
+code.  It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution.  Some
+vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on
+the hard drive of a pre-installed computer.  Any such redistribution media
+is allowed.
+
+Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned
+specifically in \S 1.  These are in some ways the most important part of
+the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name.  The GPL
+always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the
+software what its license is.  The goal is to make sure users know their
+rights and freedoms under GPL and to leave no reason that someone would be
+surprised that the software she got was licensed under GPL\@.  Thus
+throughout the GPL, there are specific reference to the importance of
+notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
+GPL.
+
+Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer.  Most people today do
+not believe that software comes with any warranty.  Notwithstanding the
+proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread
+adoption), there are little or no implied warranties with software.
+However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
+GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible.  (See
+Sections~\ref{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
+warranty disclaimers.)
+
+Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of
+commercial freedom.  \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
+copies, one may make money.  Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
+for the redistribution of copies of Free Software.  In addition, they may
+provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
+service for a fee.  (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
+on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
+
+\section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
+
+For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
+freedom along the distribution chain.  \S 2 is the only place in the GPL
+that governs the modification controls of copyright law.  If someone
+modifies a GPL'ed program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
+2.  The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'ed software, as it
+continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
+
+To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
+redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
+copying, as presented in \S 1.  Therefore, the details of charging,
+keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
+here as well.  However, there are three additional requirements.
+
+The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
+notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such changes.
+The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of marking changes,
+or controlling the process of how changes get made.  Primarily, \S 2(a)
+seeks to ensure that those receiving modified versions know what path it
+took to them.  For some users, it is important to know that they are using
+the standard version of program, because while there are many advantages
+to using a fork, there are a few disadvantages.  Users should be informed
+about the historical context of the software version they use, so that
+they can make proper support choices.  Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic
+purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic approach
+to understand the software.
+
+\medskip
+
+The second requirement (\S 2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody
+the legal details of ``share and share alike''.  These 46 words are
+considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny.  It is worth
+the effort to carefully understand what each clause is saying, because \S
+2(b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
+
+In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to
+derivative works that ``you distribute or publish''.  Despite years of
+education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
+of GPL'ed software are required by the license to publish or otherwise
+share their changes.  On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
+changes are never distributed.  Indeed, the freedom to make private,
+personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be
+protected and defended\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf
+    ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
+  and often encourages companies and individuals to do so.  However, there
+  is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one
+  {\bf must} do.}.
+
+Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in \S 0, in the
+following text:
+\begin{quote}
+... that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+  part thereof,
+\end{quote}
+Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative
+work.  If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
+derived from'' the GPL'ed software, then the requirements of \S 2(b)
+apply.  The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the
+modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution
+of the work.
+
+The final clause of \S 2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she is
+distributing or publishing a work that is deemed a derivative work under
+copyright law --- namely, the following:
+\begin{quote}
+[The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
+under the terms of this License.
+\end{quote}
+That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.
+Consider each subpart carefully.
+
+The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed.  This is an important
+point that \S 2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is
+worthy of a lengthy discussion here.  As a programmer modifies a software
+program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of
+ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage.  That
+programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes.  However,
+those changes are part and parcel to the original worked distributed to
+the programmer under GPL\@.  Thus, the license of the original work
+affects the license of the new whole derivative work.
+
+% {\cal I}
+\newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}
+\newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}
+\newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}
+
+It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
+\worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'ed program (called \workg{}).  The
+license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
+work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.
+However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work
+that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}).  The copyright of
+this derivative work, \gplusi{}, is jointly held by the original copyright
+holder of each of the two works.
+
+In this case, \S 2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be
+distributed and copied.  By default, under copyright law, the copyright
+holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
+copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
+holder of \workg{}.  (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft
+product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute
+\gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
+GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
+who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}.  This pre-granted
+permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
+of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
+would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license.  Thus, to
+say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
+
+\medskip
+
+The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed ... at no charge''.  This
+is a source of great confusion to many.  Not a month goes by that FSF does
+not receive an email that claims to point out ``a contradiction in GPL''
+because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot charge for modified versions
+of GPL'ed software, but \S 1 says that they can.  The ``at no charge''
+means not that redistributors cannot charge for performing the acts
+governed by copyright law\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge
+  for any acts not governed by copyright law, because the license controls
+  are confined by copyright.}, but rather that they cannot charge a fee
+for the \emph{license itself}.  In other words, redistributors of
+(modified and unmodified) GPL'ed works may charge any amount they choose
+for performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring
+the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing fee
+for the software.
+
+\S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed ... to all
+third parties''.  This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the
+misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made
+available to the public at large.  However, the text here does not say
+that.  Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
+extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
+of the software.  Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,
+but \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in
+a way that is extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
+copy of the software.
+
+In summary, \S 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must
+receive this no-charge license.  Namely, they receive it ``under the terms
+of this License'', the GPL.  When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
+a derivative work of GPL'ed software, the license of that whole derivative
+work must be GPL and only GPL\@.  In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely
+with \S 6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).
+
+\medskip
+
+The final paragraph of \S 2 is worth special mention.  It is possible and
+quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one
+distribution medium.  Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a
+pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to
+give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary
+applications.  The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with
+programs under any license.  Despite what you hear from its critics, the
+GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and
+a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'ed
+code-base does not impact the license of other programs.  Actual effort
+must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms
+of the GPL.  Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'ed
+software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,
+as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are
+truly GPL'ed.
+
+\section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}
+
+% FIXME: need name of a novelist who writes very obscurely and obliquely.
+
+Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
+It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
+obscured.  Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by
+William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some
+human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work.  A film, even one
+directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to
+have any value.
+
+Software is not so.  While the source code, the human-readable
+representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
+programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
+human-readable form.  Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
+can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
+be fully useful.  Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
+form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
+
+Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
+derivative works of the source code.  Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
+``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code.  The binary
+code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
+electronic file storage.
+
+Therefore, for GPL'ed software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the
+rules for creation of derivative works, must grant permission for the
+generation of binaries.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative
+popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find
+it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software.  Such
+distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's
+source code.  \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
+binary versions.
+
+Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the terms
+of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies here.
+However, \S 3 must go a bit further.  Access to the software's source code
+is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the fundamental
+freedoms to modify and improve the software.  Making even the most trivial
+changes to a software program at the binary level is effectively
+impossible.  \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never distributed
+without the source code, so that these freedoms are ensured to be passed
+along the distribution chain.
+
+\S 3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for
+distribution of source code along with binaries.  The most common and the
+least complicated is the option given under \S 3(a).
+
+\S 3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside
+the distribution of the binaries.  This is by far the most convenient
+option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code
+provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary
+distribution (more on that later).
+
+Under \S 3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source
+code''.  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code
+provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.
+That source code must also be ``complete''.  A later paragraph of \S 3
+explains in detail what is meant by ``complete''.  In essence, it is all
+the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use
+the source code to produce the binaries she has received.  Complete source
+is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to
+exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes.  Without the
+complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were
+actually directly derived from the version received.
+
+Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been seen
+in FSF's GPL enforcement.  Under GPL, if you pay a high price for a copy
+of GPL'ed binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of course), you
+have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you choose, or not
+at all.  Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating cozenage whereby
+they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for an obscure
+architecture), and then giving source code that does correspond, but not
+giving the ``incantations'' and build plans they used to make that source
+compile into the specialized binaries.  Therefore, \S 3 that the source
+code include ``meta-material'' like scripts, interface definitions, and
+other material that is used to ``control compilation and installation'' of
+the binaries.  In this manner, those further down the distribution chain
+are assured that they have the unabated freedom to build their own
+derivative works from the sources provided.
+
+FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many
+forms.  Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
+GPL'ed software into their PDAs with very tight memory and space
+constraints.  In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
+binaries on the machine itself might not be an option.  While it is
+recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
+GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
+
+\S 3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
+``medium customarily used for software interchange''.  By design, this
+phrase covers a broad spectrum.  At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL
+every ten years or so.  Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to
+changes in the technology.  When GPL version 2 was first published in June
+1991, distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
+relatively new.  Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is
+gaining adoption.  This language must adapt with changing technology.
+
+Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key.  Many
+incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the
+Internet is acceptable.  In the corporate world, it is indeed customary to
+simply download CDs worth of data over a T1 or email large file
+attachments.  However, even today in the USA, many computer users with
+CD-ROM drives are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
+to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection.  Downloading
+CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least.  In some cities
+in Africa, computers are becoming more common, but Internet connectivity
+is still available only at a few centralized locations.  Thus, the
+``customs'' here have must have a worldwide scope in context, and simply
+providing source on the Internet --- while it is a kind, friendly and
+useful thing to do --- is not usually sufficient.
+
+Note, however, a major exception to this rule, given by the last paragraph
+of \S 3.  \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the
+Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing
+the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is
+sufficient to comply with \S 3.
+
+\medskip
+
+As is shown above, Under \S 3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the
+binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@.  However,
+sometimes this turns out to be too costly.  Including a CD with every
+device could prove too costly, and may practically (although not legally)
+prohibit using GPL'ed software.  For this situation and others like it, \S
+3(b) is available.
+
+\S 3(b) allows a distributor of binaries to instead provide a written
+offer for source code alongside those binaries.  This is useful in two
+specific ways.  First, it may turn out that most users do not request the
+source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial
+and environmental windfall.  In addition, along with a \S 3(b) compliant
+offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a
+URL for source code.  Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might
+turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to
+download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial
+windfalls.
+
+However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the source
+online, that \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
+binary distributor.  The binary distributor must be prepared for three
+years to honor that offer for source, and ship it out (just as they would
+have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they receive such
+a request.  There is real organizational cost here: support engineers for
+three years must be trained how to route source requests, and source CD
+images for every release version for the last three years must be kept on
+hand to burn such CDs quickly.  The requests might not even come from
+actual customers; the offer for source must be valid for ``any third
+party''.
+
+That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again
+that full public distribution of source is required.  The offer for source
+must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of
+redistribution granted by \S\S 1--2.  A company may ship a binary image
+and an offer for source to only one customer.  However, under GPL, that
+customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she
+likes.  When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that
+those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under
+GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the
+source code.
+
+\S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)
+would unfairly favor large companies.  compromise.  \S 3(b) allows the
+separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
+to exercise their freedom.  The GPL permits this separation because it is
+good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
+source.  However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
+along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
+exercise those freedoms that require it.
+
+Meanwhile, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who
+distribute binary software commercially.  Without \S 3(c), that benefit
+would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of
+source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'
+customers.  A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant
+offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,
+merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it.  \S 3(c)
+reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).
+
+\S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{non-commercial} distribution to
+simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer.  The customer who
+wished to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the
+source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend.  By contrast, if
+she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,
+she would have to acquire the source and either comply via \S 3(a), or
+write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.
+
+This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(b) source offer must be
+valid for all third parties.  At the time the offer is made, there is no
+way of knowing who might end up non-commercially receiving a copy of the
+software.  Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be
+prepared to honor all incoming source code requests.  For this and the
+many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is
+only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Defending Freedom On Many Fronts}
+
+The last chapter presented the core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@,
+which are in \S\S 0--3.  \S\S 4--7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that
+\S\S 0--3 are not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of
+copyright law and are not trumped by other copyright agreements or
+components of other entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while \S\S
+0--3 are the parts of the license that defend the freedoms of users and
+programmers, \S\S 4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing
+field clear so that \S\S 0--3 can do their jobs.
+
+\section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}
+\label{GPLs4}
+
+\S 4 is GPL's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems
+strange for a license that has the goal of defending users and programmers
+freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
+However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability
+and this termination clause becomes clear.
+
+The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
+rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
+terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant.  Since the GPL has
+no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
+license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect\footnote{In
+  the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is
+  nearly perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual
+  copyright.}.  The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same
+work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}
+of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'ed version (assuming \S
+3(b) was never used), but the she may not revoke the rights under GPL
+already granted.
+
+In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
+GPL'ed software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of
+the copyright holder.  The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4
+termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.
+
+Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
+the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
+redistribution.  By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
+redistribution are prohibited.  \S 4 says that if you undertake any of
+those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),
+then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
+those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
+
+\S 4 gives GPL teeth.  If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then
+they are stuck.  They must to completely cease and desist from all
+copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'ed software.
+
+At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
+copyright holder to have their rights restored.  Alternatively, they could
+negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
+holder.  Both are common practice.
+
+At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom.  When FSF
+enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
+quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
+That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
+with the license and respect freedom.
+
+However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
+freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.  MySQL
+AB, a company that produces the GPL'ed MySQL database, upon discovering
+GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software license
+separately for a fee.  While this practice is not one that FSF would ever
+consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for copyright
+holders to proceed.
+
+\section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
+\label{GPLs5}
+
+\S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
+confusion about GPL\@.  Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
+most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
+EULAs.  EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
+formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
+valid.  This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
+as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
+
+The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights''.  No rights are
+transfered between parties.  By contrast, the GPL is permission slip to
+undertake activities that would otherwise been prohibited by copyright law.
+As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the licensee is not even
+required to accept the license.
+
+However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
+distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited.  So, the
+GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
+you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
+This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
+from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
+
+An interesting side benefit to \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free
+Software are not required to accept the license.  Undertaking fair and
+unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
+since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
+copyright law.  Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
+impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur and the
+terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software.  In
+other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
+freedom.
+
+\section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
+\label{GPLs6}
+
+A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
+was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@.  The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
+and it is made so formally \S 6.
+
+The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
+distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
+new licensee.  Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
+license from the original licensor to the next recipient.  This creates a
+chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
+under the GPL\@.  In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
+making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than than the
+licensee before.
+
+The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top.  It
+prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
+additional restrictions on the user.  In other words, no additional
+requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
+
+The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
+entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
+other.  This is particularly important for non-commercial users who have
+passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
+the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
+
+In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
+only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
+software.
+
+\section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty of Give It Death!''}
+\label{GPLs7}
+
+In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
+systems what \S 6 says for copyright.  If there exists any reason that a
+distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
+their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
+
+Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
+a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld.  However, in
+modern times, it has come to give much more.  Now that the body of GPL'ed
+software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
+GPL'ed software have a tough choice.  They must choose between avoiding
+distribution of GPL'ed software that exercises the teachings of their
+patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
+those patents.  Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder
+in the world, have chosen the latter.
+
+Thus, \S 7 is rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
+Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
+freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
+
+\section{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}
+\label{GPLs8}
+
+\S 8 is rarely used by copyright holders.  Its intention is that, if
+particular country, say Unfreedonia, grant particular patents or allow
+copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
+yet), that the GPL'ed software can continue in free and unabated
+distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.
+
+It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7.  Without \S 8, if a copyright holder
+knew of a patent in a particular country licensed in a GPL-incompatible
+way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work would
+legitimately end up in the hands of citizens of Unfreedonia.
+
+It is an inevitable but sad reality that some countries are freer than
+others.  \S 8 exists to permit distribution on those countries that are
+free without otherwise negating parts of the license.
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
+
+\S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL.  The balance
+of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
+liability.
+
+\section{GPL \S 9: FSF as stewards of GPL}
+\label{GPLs9}
+
+FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
+\S 9 expresses this.  While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
+of GPL'ed software around the world is shared among thousands of
+individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
+Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous.  Forking
+of licensing is disastrous.
+
+FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991.  GPL,
+version 3, is under current internal drafting.  FSF's plan is to have a
+long and engaging comment period.  The goal of GPL is defend freedom, and
+a gigantic community depends on that freedom now.  FSF hopes to take all
+stakeholders' opinions under advisement.
+
+\section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}
+\label{GPLs10}
+
+\S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
+copyright law.  Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
+program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate
+copyright licenses.
+
+\section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}
+\label{GPLs11}
+
+All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
+letters.  Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
+of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
+the parties.  Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous'', people
+started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text.  It now seems
+to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
+
+Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
+permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11
+affirms.
+
+\section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
+\label{GPLs12}
+
+There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
+cannot be disclaimed.  Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
+warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12.
+\S 11 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
+disavowed.  \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
+warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
+
+So ends the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
+
+
+%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
+\chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
+
+Since GPL'ed software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
+is useful to has some basic knowledge about using GPL'ed software in
+business and how to build business models around GPL'ed software.
+
+\section{Using GPL'ed Software In-House}
+
+A discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial, the
+GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and distributing the
+software are not governed by the license.  Thus, in FSF's view, simply
+installing the software on a machine and using it is not controlled or
+limited in any way by GPL\@.  Using Free Software in general requires
+substantially fewer agreements and less license compliance activity than
+any known proprietary software.
+
+Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
+enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is
+encouraged!  If the company simply deploy unmodified (or even modified)
+Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
+obligations under the license are very minimal.  Using Free Software has a
+substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
+licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
+equivalents.
+
+\section{Business Models}
+\label{Business Models}
+
+Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but there is also a
+thriving market for Free Software-oriented business models.  There is the
+traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.  Many
+companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue from this
+model.  IBM primarily chooses this model because they have found that for
+higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from proprietary software
+licensing fees is negligible.  The real profit is in the hardware, but it is
+essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and the users
+be allowed to have unfettered access to it.  Free Software, and GPL'ed
+software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary
+versions of the same software will not exists to compete on their
+hardware) is the right choice.
+
+Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
+when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
+profit.  Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
+website, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
+box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
+a free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
+
+\medskip
+
+However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts are
+the most widely used models for GPL'ed software.  The GPL is central to
+their success, because it ensure that the code base remains common, and
+that large and small companies are on equal footing for access to the
+technology.  Consider, for example, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
+Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the early 1990s, was able to grow
+steadily simply by providing services for GCC --- mostly consisting of
+porting GCC to new embedded chipset target platforms.  Eventually, Cygnus
+was so successful that it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a
+profitable division.
+
+However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as
+other medium sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in
+this space.  Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and
+demands industry trust.  Companies can cooperate on the software and
+improve it for everyone.  Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
+work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
+platforms, and nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
+versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
+
+\medskip
+
+\label{Proprietary Relicensing}
+
+A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
+proprietary relicensing of a GPL'ed code base.  This is only an option for
+software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder.  As
+discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under
+copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many
+different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.
+
+Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their
+financial advantage with regard to a GPL'ed code base.  The standard
+version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
+However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
+a fee.
+
+This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'ed code
+base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
+Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
+the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
+software as Free Software.  Indeed, the company will surely use such code
+contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
+
+\section{Ongoing Compliance}
+
+GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than
+typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs.  Usually, the most
+difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
+that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support.  Certainly
+complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
+headaches than proprietary license compliance.
+
+For those who go into the business of distributing or distributing
+modified versions of GPL'ed software, the burden is a bit higher, but not
+by much.  The glib answer that is that it is always easy to comply with
+the GPL by releasing the whole product as Free Software.  However,
+admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software systems
+are built using both proprietary and GPL'ed components that are not
+legally derivative works of each other.  Usually, in product development
+with Free Software tools, sometimes it is easier simply to improve
+existing GPL'ed application than to start from scratch.  In exchange for
+that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give back to the
+commons that made the work easier.  It is a reasonable trade-off, and it
+is a way to help build a better world while also making a profit.
+
+Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
+assistance in complying with the GPL.  You can contact FSF's GPL
+Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.
+
+\appendix
+
+\chapter{The GNU General Public License}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2, June 1991
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\bigskip
+
+59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
+
+\bigskip
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\bf\large Preamble}
+\end{center}
+
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
+share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
+make sure the software is free for all its users.  This General Public
+License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to
+any other program whose authors commit to using it.  (Some other Free
+Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public
+License instead.)  You can apply it to your programs, too.
+
+When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
+Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
+freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service
+if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
+that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;
+and that you know you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
+deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.  These
+restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.  You
+must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  And
+you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
+offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
+everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software.  If
+the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
+recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
+problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
+reputations.
+
+Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
+We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
+individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
+proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
+be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+
+%\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alpha{enumi}}
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+
+\item
+
+This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
+placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
+terms of this General Public License.  The ``Program'', below, refers to
+any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
+the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
+work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
+modifications and/or translated into another language.  (Hereinafter,
+translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification''.)
+Each licensee is addressed as ``you''.
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+\item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
+  code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
+  and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
+  and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
+  this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
+  recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
+may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+\item
+
+You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
+you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+\item
+
+You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+parties under the terms of this License.
+
+\item
+If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+\item
+You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+\item
+
+Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
+allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+received the program in object code or executable form with such
+an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+\item
+You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+\item
+You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+\item
+Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+\item
+If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+\item
+If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+\item
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
+later version'', you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+\item
+If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc
+No Warranty
+}
+\end{center}
+
+\item
+{\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
+for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law.  Except when
+otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
+provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
+or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
+merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.  The entire risk as
+to the quality and performance of the program is with you.  Should the
+program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
+repair or correction.}
+
+\item
+{\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
+will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
+redistribute the program as permitted above, be liable to you for damages,
+including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising
+out of the use or inability to use the program (including but not limited
+to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by
+you or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any other
+programs), even if such holder or other party has been advised of the
+possibility of such damages.}
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
+\end{center}
+
+
+\pagebreak[2]
+
+\section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
+
+If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
+terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest to
+  attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
+  the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+  ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+\begin{quote}
+one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
+Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+
+This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+(at your option) any later version.
+
+This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
+\end{quote}
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
+Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
+This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+\end{quote}
+
+
+The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
+appropriate parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands
+you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
+they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
+program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
+necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+\begin{quote}
+Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
+`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
+
+signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
+Ty Coon, President of Vice
+\end{quote}
+
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
+into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you
+may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
+with the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
+General Public License instead of this License.
+
+
+\chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\parindent 0in
+
+Version 2.1, February 1999
+
+Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+\bigskip
+
+59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
+
+\bigskip
+
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+\bigskip
+
+[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL.  It also counts
+ as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence
+ the version number 2.1.]
+}
+
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{center}
+{\bf\large Preamble}
+\end{center}
+
+The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
+share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are
+intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software---to
+make sure the software is free for all its users.
+
+This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
+designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
+Foundation and other authors who decide to use it.  You can use it too,
+but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
+ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
+particular case, based on the explanations below.
+
+When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use, not
+price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
+have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
+this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if
+you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new
+free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
+
+To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
+rights.  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
+if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
+
+For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
+for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
+You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.  If
+you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
+files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
+after making changes to the library and recompiling it.  And you must show
+them these terms so they know their rights.
+
+We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
+library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
+permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
+
+To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
+no warranty for the free library.  Also, if the library is modified by
+someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
+is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
+not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
+
+Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
+free program.  We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
+restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license
+from a patent holder.  Therefore, we insist that any patent license
+obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
+freedom of use specified in this license.
+
+Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
+GNU General Public License.  This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
+License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
+from the ordinary General Public License.  We use this license for certain
+libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free
+programs.
+
+When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
+shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
+work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary General Public
+License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
+its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser General Public License permits more
+lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
+
+We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
+Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
+License.  It also provides other free software developers Less of an
+advantage over competing non-free programs.  These disadvantages are the
+reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
+However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
+circumstances.
+
+For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
+the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
+de-facto standard.  To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to
+use the library.  A more frequent case is that a free library does the
+same job as widely used non-free libraries.  In this case, there is little
+to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the
+Lesser General Public License.
+
+In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free
+programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free
+software.  For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
+programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
+as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
+
+Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
+users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
+with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
+using a modified version of the Library.
+
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.  Pay close attention to the difference between a
+``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library''.  The
+former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
+combined with the library in order to run.
+
+\begin{center}
+{\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
+{\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
+  Modification}
+\end{center}
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+\addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
+
+\item
+
+This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
+which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
+party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
+Public License (also called ``this License'').  Each licensee is addressed
+as ``you''.
+
+A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
+prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
+use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
+
+The ``Library'', below, refers to any such software library or work which
+has been distributed under these terms.  A ``work based on the Library''
+means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
+is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either
+verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
+another language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without
+limitation in the term ``modification''.)
+
+``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
+modifications to it.  For a library, complete source code means all the
+source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
+definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
+installation of the library.
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of running a
+program using the Library is not restricted, and output from such a
+program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Library (independent of the use of the Library in a tool for writing it).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Library does and what the program
+that uses the Library does.
+  
+\item 
+
+You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's complete
+source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
+conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
+copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
+that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
+distribute a copy of this License along with the Library.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
+and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
+fee.
+
+\item
+
+You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it,
+thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such
+modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
+you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+
+  \item
+
+    The modified work must itself be a software library.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
+    that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+  \item
+
+    You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
+    all third parties under the terms of this License.
+
+  \item 
+    If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a table
+    of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
+    facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
+    invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
+    event an application does not supply such function or table, the
+    facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
+    remains meaningful.
+
+(For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
+purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
+Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
+or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
+not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
+\end{enumerate}
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
+it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Library.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library
+with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+  3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
+License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library.  To do
+this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so
+that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2,
+instead of to this License.  (If a newer version than version 2 of the
+ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify
+that version instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other change in
+these notices.
+
+  Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
+that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all
+subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
+
+  This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
+the Library into a program that is not a library.
+
+  4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or
+derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
+under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany
+it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
+must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
+medium customarily used for software interchange.
+
+  If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy
+from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
+source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to
+distribute the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
+Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
+linked with it, is called a ``work that uses the Library''.  Such a
+work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
+therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
+
+  However, linking a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library
+creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
+contains portions of the Library), rather than a ``work that uses the
+library''.  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
+Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
+
+  When a ``work that uses the Library'' uses material from a header file
+that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
+derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
+Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
+linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The
+threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
+
+  If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
+structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
+functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
+file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
+work.  (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
+Library will still fall under Section 6.)
+
+  Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may
+distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.
+Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6,
+whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
+
+  6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
+link a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library to produce a
+work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
+under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
+modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
+engineering for debugging such modifications.
+
+  You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
+Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
+this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
+during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
+copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
+directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must do one
+of these things:
+
+    a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
+    machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
+    changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
+    Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
+    with the Library, with the complete machine-readable ``work that
+    uses the Library'', as object code and/or source code, so that the
+    user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
+    executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
+    that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
+    Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
+    to use the modified definitions.)
+
+    b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
+    Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
+    copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
+    rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
+    will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
+    the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
+    interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
+
+    c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
+    least three years, to give the same user the materials
+    specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
+    than the cost of performing this distribution.
+
+    d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
+    from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
+    specified materials from the same place.
+
+    e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
+    materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
+
+  For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the
+Library'' must include any data and utility programs needed for
+reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
+the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is
+normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
+components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
+which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
+the executable.
+
+  It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
+restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
+accompany the operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot
+use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
+distribute.
+
+  7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the
+Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library
+facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined
+library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on
+the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise
+permitted, and provided that you do these two things:
+
+    a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work
+    based on the Library, uncombined with any other library
+    facilities.  This must be distributed under the terms of the
+    Sections above.
+
+    b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact
+    that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining
+    where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
+
+  8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute
+the Library except as expressly provided under this License.  Any
+attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or
+distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your
+rights under this License.  However, parties who have received copies,
+or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses
+terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
+
+  9. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Library or its derivative works.  These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Library (or any work based on the
+Library), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Library or works based on it.
+
+  10. Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the
+Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library
+subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
+this License.
+
+  11. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Library at all.  For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any
+particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply,
+and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system which is
+implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+  12. If the distribution and/or use of the Library is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Library under this License may add
+an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
+so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
+excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
+written in the body of this License.
+
+  13. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
+versions of the Lesser General Public License from time to time.
+Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
+but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Library
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
+``any later version'', you have the option of following the terms and
+conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
+the Free Software Foundation.  If the Library does not specify a
+license version number, you may choose any version ever published by
+the Free Software Foundation.
+
+  14. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Library into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these,
+write to the author to ask for permission.  For software which is
+copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free
+Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this.  Our
+decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status
+of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing
+and reuse of software generally.
+
+			    NO WARRANTY
+
+  15. BECAUSE THE LIBRARY IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
+WARRANTY FOR THE LIBRARY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
+EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR
+OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE LIBRARY ``AS IS'' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
+KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
+IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
+PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE
+LIBRARY IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE LIBRARY PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME
+THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+  16. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN
+WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY
+AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE LIBRARY AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU
+FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
+CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE
+LIBRARY (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
+RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
+FAILURE OF THE LIBRARY TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER SOFTWARE), EVEN IF
+SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGES.
+
+		     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+           How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries
+
+  If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, we recommend making it free software that
+everyone can redistribute and change.  You can do so by permitting
+redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of the
+ordinary General Public License).
+
+  To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.  It is
+safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
+``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+    <one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
+
+    This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+    version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+    This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
+    Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+    You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+    License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
+    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
+necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the
+  library `Frob' (a library for tweaking knobs) written by James Random Hacker.
+
+  <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1990
+  Ty Coon, President of Vice
+
+That's all there is to it!
+
+
+
+\end{document}
+
+% LocalWords:  proprietarize redistributors sublicense yyyy Gnomovision EULAs
+% LocalWords:  Yoyodyne FrontPage improvers Berne copyrightable Stallman's GPLs
+% LocalWords:  Lessig Lessig's UCITA pre PDAs CDs reshifts GPL's Gentoo
+% LocalWords:  TrollTech
